[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[David E. Smith]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> My proposal that orgs pay either their v4 fees or v6 fees, whichever is 
> more, has the same long-term effect without the unintended consequences.

Now this is a proposal I can get behind. :)

I work for a fairly small ISP (we've got a single /19). I've been 
following this discussion, and I've wanted to play with IPv6 for a 
while. I can't, however, cost-justify it to the boss.

Right now, there are IPv6 fee waivers, but they're presently only 
guaranteed through the end of the year. Unless the IPv6 fees are waived 
again, we'll either have to return the allocation in a few months, or 
somehow come up with $2250 to pay for something we don't presently 
*need*. (Right now, our upstream doesn't support IPv6, saying none of 
their customers are clamoring for it; it's a very chicken-and-egg problem.)

Meanwhile, we're small enough that $2250 a year (assuming we get a 
"Small" allocation, the same as our current IPv4 one) is a pretty hefty 
expense. My customers aren't asking about IPv6, much of our gear doesn't 
support it, and there's not that much you can do with it (that you can't 
do with IPv4) -- it's a very hard sell.

If I could get some kind of guarantee or other really solid reassurance 
that trying to deploy IPv6 isn't going to cost me money I don't really 
have for something I don't yet need, I'd be glad to start tinkering. The 
aforementioned proposal makes perfect sense to me. (A longer-term fee 
waiver, say through 2011 or so, would work just as well from my 
perspective, though I can't say how well it'd work for ARIN.)

David Smith
MVN.net